50. Inter-Orient vs.

NLRC telegram dated 24 October 1989 from Inter-Orient requiring

him to explain why he delayed sailing to South Africa.
Same; Administrative Law; Judgments; Question of
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED“fact” is, as a general rule, the concern solely of an
Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC administrative body, so long as there is substantial evidence
of record to sustain its action.—We also find that the
G.R. No. 115286. August 11, 1994.* principal contention of petitioners against the decision of the
INTER-ORIENT MARITIME ENTERPRISES, INC., SEA NLRC pertains to facts, that is, whether or not there was
HORSE SHIP MANAGEMENT, INC. and TRENDA actual and sufficient basis for the alleged loss of trust or
WORLD SHIPPING (MANILA), INC., confidence. We have consistently held that a question of
petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS “fact” is, as a general rule, the concern solely of an
COMMISSION and RIZALINO D. TAYONG, respondents. administrative body, so long as there is substantial evidence
Labor Law; Confidential and Managerial of record to sustain its action.
Employee; Dismissal; Confidential and managerial Same; Maritime Law; The applicable principle is that
employees cannot be arbitrarily dismissed at any time, and the captain has control of all departments of service in the
without cause as reasonably established in an appropriate vessel, and reasonable discretion as to its navigation.—
investigation.—It is well settled in this jurisdiction that More importantly, a ship’s captain must be accorded a
confidential and managerial employees cannot be arbitrarily reasonable measure of discretionary authority to decide what
dismissed at any time, and without cause as reasonably the safety of the ship and of its crew and cargo specifically
established in an appropriate investigation. Such employees, requires on a stipulated ocean voyage. The captain is held
too, are entitled to security of tenure, fair standards of responsible, and properly so, for such safety. He is right
employment and the protection of labor laws. there on the vessel, in command of it and (it must be
Same; Same; Same; Maritime Law; The captain of a presumed) knowledgeable as to the specific requirements of
vessel is a confidential and managerial employee within the seaworthiness and the particular risks and perils of the
meaning of the above doctrine.—The captain of a vessel is a voyage he is to embark upon. The applicable principle is
confidential and managerial employee within the meaning of that the captain has control of all departments of service in
the above doctrine. A master or captain, for purposes of the vessel, and reasonable discretion as to its navigation. It is
maritime commerce, is one who has command of a vessel. A the right and duty of the captain, in the exercise of sound
captain commonly performs three (3) distinct roles: (1) he is discretion and in good faith, to do all things with respect to
a general agent of the shipowner; (2) he is also commander the vessel and its equipment and conduct of the voyage
and technical director of the vessel; and (3) he is a which are reasonably necessary for the protection and
representative of the country under whose flag he navigates. preservation of the interests under his charge, whether those
Of these roles, by far the most important is the role be of the shipowners, charterers, cargo owners or of
performed by the captain as commander of the vessel; for underwriters. It is a basic principle of admiralty law that in
such role (which, to our mind, is analogous to that of “Chief navigating a merchantman, the master must be left free to
Executive Officer” [CEO] of a present-day corporate exercise his own best judgment. The requirements of safe
enterprise) has to do with the operation and preservation of navigation compel us to reject any suggestion that the
the vessel during its voyage and the protection of the judgment and discretion of the captain of a vessel may be
passengers (if any) and crew and cargo. In his role as confined
general agent of the shipowner, the captain has authority to 270
sign bills of lading, carry goods aboard and deal with the
freight earned, agree upon rates and decide whether to take 270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTA
cargo. The ship captain, as agent of the shipowner, has legal Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC
authority to enter into contracts with respect to the vessel within a straitjacket, even in this age of electronic
and the trading of the vessel, subject to applicable communications. Indeed, if the ship captain is convinced, as
limitations established by statute, contract or instructions a reasonably prudent and competent mariner acting in good
and regulations of the shipowner. To the captain is faith that the shipowner’s or ship agent’s instructions
committed the governance, care and management of the (insisted upon by radio or telefax from their offices
vessel. Clearly, the captain is vested with thousands of miles away) will result, in the very specific
circumstances facing him, in imposing unacceptable risks of
_______________ loss or serious danger to ship or crew, he cannot casually
seek absolution from his responsibility, if a marine casualty
*
 THIRD DIVISION. occurs, in such instructions.
269 Same; Same; Compagnie de Commerce vs. Hamburg
VOL. 235, AUGUST 11, 1994 is instructive and wherein the Court recognized the
discretionary authority of the master of a vessel and his
Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC right to exercise his best judgment, with respect to
both management and fiduciary functions. navigating the vessel he commands.—Compagnie de
Same; Same; Same; Captain Tayong was denied any Commerce v. Hamburg is instructive in this connection.
opportunity to defend himself.—It is plain from the records There, this Court recognized the discretionary authority of
of the present petition that Captain Tayong was denied any the master of a vessel and his right to exercise his best
opportunity to defend himself. Petitioners curtly dismissed judgment, with respect to navigating the vessel he
him from his command and summarily ordered his commands. In Compagnie de Commerce, a charter party was
repatriation to the Philippines without informing him of the executed between Compagnie de Commerce and the owners
charge or charges levelled against him, and much less giving of the vessel Sambia, under which the former as charterer
him a chance to refute any such charge. In fact, it was only loaded on board the Sambia, at the port of Saigon, certain
on 26 October 1989 that Captain Tayong received a cargo destined for the Ports of Dunkirk and Hamburg in
Page 1 of 6
Europe. The Sambia, flying the German flag, could not, in going vessels, was employed on 6 July 1989 by petitioners
the judgment of its master, reach its ports of destination Trenda World Shipping (Manila), Inc. and Sea Horse Ship
because war (World War I) had been declared between Management, Inc. through petitioner Inter-Orient Maritime
Germany and France. The master of the Sambia decided to Enterprises, Inc. as Master of the vessel M/V Oceanic
deviate from the stipulated voyage and sailed instead for the Mindoro, for a period of one (1) year, as evidenced by an
Port of Manila. Compagnie de Commerce sued in the employment contract. On 15 July 1989, Captain Tayong
Philippines for damages arising from breach of the charter assumed command of petitioners’ vessel at the port of
party and unauthorized sale of the cargo. In affirming the Hongkong. His instructions were to replenish bunker and
decision of the trial court dismissing the complaint, our diesel fuel, to sail forthwith to Richard Bay, South Africa,
Supreme Court held that the master of the Sambia had and there to load 120,000 metric tons of coal.
reasonable grounds to apprehend that the vessel was in On 16 July 1989, while at the Port of Hongkong and in
danger of seizure or capture by the French authorities in the process of unloading cargo, Captain Tayong received a
Saigon and was justified by necessity to elect the course weather
which he took—i.e., to flee Saigon for the Port of Manila— 272
with the result that the shipowner was relieved from liability 272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
for the deviation from the stipulated route and from liability
Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC
for damage to the cargo.
Same; Dismissal; The decision of Captain Tayong did report that a storm code-named “Gordon” would shortly hit
not constitute a legal basis for his summary dismissal and Hongkong. Precautionary measures were taken to secure the
for termination of his contract with petitioners prior to the safety of the vessel, as well as its crew, considering that the
expiration of the term thereof.—Under all the circumstances vessel’s turbo-charger was leaking and the vessel was
of this case, we, along with the NLRC, are unable to hold fourteen (14) years old.
that Captain Tayong’s decision (arrived at after consultation On 21 July 1989, Captain Tayong followed-up the
with the vessel’s Chief Engineer) to wait seven (7) hours in requisition by the former captain of the Oceanic
Singapore for the delivery on board the Oceanic Mindoro of Mindoro for supplies of oxygen and acetylene, necessary for
the requisitioned supplies needed for the welding-repair, on the welding-repair of the turbo-charger and the
board the ship, of the turbo-charger and the economizer economizer.1 This requisition had been made upon request
equipment of the vessel, constituted merely of the Chief Engineer of the vessel and had been approved
271 by the shipowner.2
On 25 July 1989, the vessel sailed from Hong Kong for
VOL. 235, AUGUST 11, 1994 Singapore. In the Master’s sailing message, Captain Tayong
Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC reported a water leak from M.E. Turbo Charger No. 2
arbitrary, capricious or grossly insubordinate behavior Exhaust gas casing. He was subsequently instructed to blank
on his part. In the view of the NLRC, that decision of off the cooling water and maintain reduced RPM unless
Captain Tayong did not constitute a legal basis for the authorized by the owners.3
summary dismissal of Captain Tayong and for termination On 29 July 1989, while the vessel was en route to
of his contract with petitioners prior to the expiration of the Singapore, Captain Tayong reported that the vessel had
term thereof. We cannot hold this conclusion of the NLRC stopped in mid-ocean for six (6) hours and forty-five (45)
to be a grave abuse of discretion amounting to an excess or minutes due to a leaking economizer. He was instructed to
loss of jurisdiction; indeed, we share that conclusion and shut down the economizer and use the auxiliary boiler
make it our own. instead.4
Same; Management Prerogative; Dismissal; The
petitioner’s management prerogative cannot be exercised at _______________
the cost of loss of Captain Tayong’s rights under his
contract with petitioners and under Philippine Law.— 1
 A “turbo-charger” is a centrifugal blower driven by
Clearly, petitioners were angered at Captain Tayong’s exhaust gas turbines and used to supercharge an engine, or
decision to wait for delivery of the needed supplies before to supply a charge to the intake of an internal-combustion
sailing from Singapore, and may have changed their engine at a pressure higher than that of the surrounding
estimate of their ability to work with him and of his atmosphere (Webster’s New World Dictionary (1974), p.
capabilities as a ship captain. Assuming that to be 1532.
petitioners’ management prerogative, that prerogative is An “economizer” is a device in which water is heated
never-theless not to be exercised, in the case at bar, at the preliminary to entering the boiler proper. The heat which
cost of loss of Captain Tayong’s rights under his contract was used in raising the temperature of the water contained in
with petitioners and under Philippine law. the boiler to boiling point is utilized, instead of being
wasted, for the purpose of raising the water in the
PETITION for review of a decision of the National Labor economizer to a high temperature before it enters the boiler.
Relations Commission. An increase in the feed water temperature will raise boiler
efficiency. (Ithaca Traction Corp. vs. Traveler’s Indemnity
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Co., 177 N.Y.S. 753 [1919])
2
     Marilyn Cacho-Naoe for petitioners.  NLRC Decision, p. 3.
3
     Wilfred L. Pascasio for private respondent.  Report of Mr. Robert B. Clark, p. 1; Records, p. 104.
4
 Id., p. 2; Records, p. 103.
FELICIANO, J.: 273
VOL. 235, AUGUST 11, 1994
Private respondent Captain Rizalino Tayong, a licensed
Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC
Master Mariner with experience in commanding ocean-

Page 2 of 6
On 31 July 1989 at 0607 hrs., the vessel arrived at the port to petitioners, as a direct result of Captain Tayong’s delay,
of Singapore.5 The Chief Engineer reminded Captain petitioners’ vessel was placed “off-hire” by the charterer for
Tayong that the oxygen and acetylene supplies had not been twelve (12) hours. This meant that the charterers refused to
delivered.6 Captain Tayong inquired from the ship’s agent in pay the charter hire or compensation corresponding to
Singapore about the supplies. The ship agent stated that twelve (12) hours, amounting to US$15,500.00, due to time
these could only be delivered at 0800 hours on August 1, lost in the voyage. They stated that they had dismissed
1989 as the stores had closed.7 private respondent for loss of trust and confidence.
Captain Tayong called the shipowner, Sea Horse Ship The POEA dismissed Captain Tayong’s complaint and
Management, Ltd., in London and informed them that the held that there was valid cause for his untimely repatriation.
departure of the vessel for South Africa may be affected The decision of the POEA placed considerable weight on
because of the delay in the delivery of the supplies.8 petitioners’ assertion that all the time lost as a result of the
Sea Horse advised Captain Tayong to contact its delay was caused by Captain Tayong and that his concern
Technical Director, Mr. Clark, who was in Tokyo and who for the oxygen and acetylene was not legitimate as these
could provide a solution for the supply of said oxygen and supplies were not necessary or indispensable for running the
acetylene.9 vessel. The POEA believed that the Captain had
On the night of 31 July 1989, Mr. Clark received a call unreasonably refused to follow the instructions of petitioners
from Captain Tayong informing him that the vessel cannot and their representative, despite petitioners’ firm assurances
sail without the oxygen and acetylene for safety reasons due that the vessel was seaworthy for the voyage to South
to the problems with the turbo charger and economizer. Mr. Africa.
Clark responded that by shutting off the water to the turbo On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission
chargers and using the auxiliary boiler, there should be no (“NLRC”) reversed and set aside the decision of the POEA.
further problem. According to Mr. Clark, Captain Tayong The NLRC
agreed with him that the vessel could sail as scheduled on
0100 hours on 1 August 1989 for South Africa.10 _______________
According to Captain Tayong, however, he
communicated to Sea Horse his reservations regarding 13
 NLRC Decision, p. 3.
proceeding to South Africa without the requested 14
 Memorandum of appeal, p. 4; Records, p. 196.
supplies,11 and was advised by Sea Horse to wait for the 275
supplies at 0800 hrs. of 1 August 1989, which Sea Horse VOL. 235, AUGUST 11, 1994
had arranged to be delivered on board the Oceanic
Mindoro.12 At 0800 hours on 1 August 1989, the Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC
requisitioned supplies found that Captain Tayong had not been afforded an
opportunity to be heard and that no substantial evidence was
_______________ adduced to establish the basis for petitioners’ loss of trust or
confidence in the Captain. The NLRC declared that he had
5
 Id., p. 1; Records, p. 104. only acted in accordance with his duties to maintain the
6
 Memorandum of appeal of Captain Tayong, p. 3; seaworthiness of the vessel and to insure the safety of the
Records, p. 197. ship and the crew. The NLRC directed petitioners to pay the
7
 NLRC Decision, p. 3. Captain (a) his salary for the unexpired portion of the
8
 Memorandum of appeal of Captain Tayong, p. 3; contract at US$1,900.00 a month, plus one (1) month leave
Records, p. 197. benefit; and (b) attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent
9
 Id., pp. 3-4; Records, pp. 196-197. (10%) of the total award due.
10
 Report of Mr. Clark, p. 1; Records, p. 103. Petitioners, before this Court, claim that the NLRC had
11
 Memorandum of Appeal, p. 4; Records, p. 196. acted with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners allege that
12
 Id., p. 4; Records, p. 196. they had adduced sufficient evidence to establish the basis
274 for private respondent’s discharge, contrary to the
conclusion reached by the NLRC. Petitioners insist that
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDCaptain Tayong, who must protect the interest of petitioners,
Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC had caused them unnecessary damage, and that they, as
were delivered and Captain Tayong immediately sailed for owners of the vessel, cannot be com-pelled to keep in their
Richard Bay. employ a captain of a vessel in whom they have lost their
When the vessel arrived at the port of Richard Bay, trust and confidence. Petitioners finally contend that the
South Africa on 16 August 1989, Captain Tayong was award to the Captain of his salary corresponding to the
instructed to turnover his post to the new captain. He was unexpired portion of the contract and one (1) month leave
thereafter repatriated to the Philippines, after serving pay, including attorney’s fees, also constituted grave abuse
petitioners for a little more than two weeks. 13 He was not of dis-cretion.
informed of the charges against him.14 The petition must fail.
On 5 October 1989, Captain Tayong instituted a We note preliminarily that petitioners failed to attach a
complaint for illegal dismissal before the Philippine clearly legible, properly certified, true copy of the decision
Overseas Employment Administration (“POEA”), claiming of the NLRC dated 23 April 1994, in violation of
his unpaid salary for the unexpired portion of the written requirement no. 3 of Revised Circular No. 1-88. On this
employment contract, plus attorney’s fees. ground alone, the petition could have been dismissed. But
Petitioners, in their answer to the complaint, denied that the Court chose not to do so, in view of the nature of the
they had illegally dismissed Captain Tayong. Petitioners question here raised and instead required private respondent
alleged that he had refused to sail immediately to South to file a comment on the petition. Captain Tayong submitted
Africa to the prejudice and damage of petitioners. According his comment. The Office of the Solicitor General asked for

Page 3 of 6
an extension of thirty (30) days to file its comment on behalf was only on 26 October 1989 that Captain Tayong received
of the NLRC. We consider that the Solicitor General’s a telegram dated 24 October 1989 from Inter-Orient
comment may be dispensed with in this case. requiring him to explain why he delayed sailing to South
It is well settled in this jurisdiction that confidential and Africa.
managerial employees cannot be arbitrarily dismissed at any We also find that the principal contention of petitioners
time, and without cause as reasonably established in an against the decision of the NLRC pertains to facts, that is,
appro- whether or not there was actual and sufficient basis for the
276 alleged loss of trust or confidence. We have consistently
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDheld that a question of “fact” is, as a general rule, the
concern solely of an administrative body, so long as there is
Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC
substantial evidence of record to sustain its action.
priate investigation.15 Such employees, too, are entitled to The record requires us to reject petitioners’ claim that
security of tenure, fair standards of employment and the the NLRC’s conclusions of fact were not supported by
protection of labor laws. substantial evidence. Petitioners rely on self-serving
The captain of a vessel is a confidential and managerial affidavits of their own officers and employees predictably
employee within the meaning of the above doctrine. A tending to support petitioners’ allegation that Captain
master or captain, for purposes of maritime commerce, is Tayong had performed acts inimical to petitioners’ interests
one who has command of a vessel. A captain commonly for which, supposedly, he was discharged. The official
performs three (3) distinct roles: (1) he is a general agent of report of Mr. Clark, petitioners’ representative, in fact
the shipowner; (2) he is also commander and technical supports the NLRC’s conclusion that private respondent
director of the vessel; and (3) he is a representative of the Captain did not arbitrarily and maliciously delay the voyage
16
country under whose flag he navigates.  Of these roles, by to South Africa. There had been, Mr. Clark stated, a
far the most important is the role performed by the captain disruption in the normal functioning of the vessel’s turbo-
as commander of the vessel; for such role (which, to our charger19 and economizer and that had prevented the full or
mind, is analogous to that of “Chief Executive Officer” regular operation of the vessel. Thus, Mr. Clark relayed to
[CEO] of a present-day corporate enterprise) has to do with Captain Tayong instructions to “maintain reduced RPM”
the operation and preservation of the vessel during its during the voyage to South Africa, instead of waiting in
voyage and the protection of the passengers (if any) and Singapore for the supplies that would permit shipboard
crew and cargo. In his role as general agent of the repair of the malfunctioning machinery and equipment.
shipowner, the captain has authority to sign bills of lading, More importantly, a ship’s captain must be accorded a
carry goods aboard and deal with the freight earned, agree reasonable measure of discretionary authority to decide what
upon rates and decide whether to take cargo. The ship the safety of the ship and of its crew and cargo specifically
captain, as agent of the shipowner, has legal authority to requires on a stipulated ocean voyage. The captain is held
enter into contracts with respect to the vessel and the trading responsible,
of the vessel, subject to applicable limitations established by
statute, contract or instructions and regulations of the _______________
shipowner.17 To the captain is committed the governance,
care and management of the vessel. 18 Clearly, the captain is 19
 The official statement of Mr. Clark reported that there
vested with both management and fiduciary functions.
was “a water leak from M.E. Turbo-Charger No. 2 Exhaust
It is plain from the records of the present petition that
gas outlet casing.” (Petition, Rollo, p. 6).
Captain Tayong was denied any opportunity to defend
278
himself. Petitioners
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
_______________ Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC
and properly so, for such safety. He is right there on the
15
 Lawrence vs. National Labor Relations vessel, in command of it and (it must be presumed)
Commission, 205 SCRA 737 (1992); Hellenic Philippine knowledgeable as to the specific requirements of
Shipping, Inc. vs. Siete, 195 SCRA 179 (1991); Anscor seaworthiness and the particular risks and perils of the
Transport & Terminals, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations voyage he is to embark upon. The applicable principle is
Commission, 190 SCRA 147 (1990). that the captain has control of all departments of service in
16
 See Hernandez and Penasales, Philippine Admiralty the vessel, and reasonable discretion as to its navigation. 20 It
and Maritime Law, p. 388 (1987). is the right and duty of the captain, in the exercise of sound
17
 Article 610, Code of Commerce. discretion and in good faith, to do all things with respect to
18
 See Article 610, Code of Commerce. See Fitz vs. The the vessel and its equipment and conduct of the voyage
Galiot Amelie, 73 US 18, 18 L Ed 806 which are reasonably necessary for the protection and
(1867); Steamship Styria vs. Morgan, 186 US 1, 46 L Ed preservation of the interests under his charge, whether those
1027 (1901); McAndrews vs. Thatcher, 70 US 347, 18 L Ed be of the shipowners, charterers, cargo owners or of
155 (1865); The Propeller Niagara vs. Cordes, 62 US 7, 16 underwriters.21 It is a basic principle of admiralty law that in
L Ed 41 (1858). navigating a merchantman, the master must be left free to
277 exercise his own best judgment. The require-ments of safe
VOL. 235, AUGUST 11, 1994 navigation compel us to reject any suggestion that the
judgment and discretion of the captain of a vessel may be
Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC
confined within a straitjacket, even in this age of electronic
curtly dismissed him from his command and summarily communications.22 Indeed, if the ship captain is convinced,
ordered his repatriation to the Philippines without informing as a reasonably prudent and competent mariner acting in
him of the charge or charges levelled against him, and much good faith that the shipowner’s or ship agent’s instructions
less giving him a chance to refute any such charge. In fact, it

Page 4 of 6
(insisted upon by radio or telefax from their offices exercised, cannot, of course, mean an irresistible
thousands of miles away) will result, in the very specific compelling power. What is meant by it in such cases is the
circumstances facing him, in imposing unacceptable risks of force of circumstances which determine the course a man
loss or serious danger to ship or crew, he cannot casually ought to take. Thus, where by the force of circumstances, a
seek absolution from his responsibility, if a marine casualty man has the
occurs, in such instructions.23
_______________
_______________
Roberts v. United Fisheries Vessels Co., 141 F 2d 288
20
 American-Hawaiian S.S. Co. v. Pacific S.S. Co., 41 F (1944).
24
2d 718 (1930); The Princess Sophia, 61 F 2d 339 (1932).  36 Phil. 590 (1917).
21
 The Styria, 186 US 1, 46 L Ed 1027 (1901); Grays 280
Harbor County vs. Brimanger (1933), 18 P 2d 25; Wandtke 280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
vs. Anderson, 74 F 2d 381 (1934); The Balsa, 10 F 2d 408
Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC
(1926); The Pomare, 92 F Supp 185 (1950); The Vulcan, 60
F Supp 158 (1945); Framlington, 69 F 2d 300 duty cast upon him of taking some action for another, and
(1934); United British Steamship Company, Ltd. v. under that obligation adopts a course which, to the
Newfoundland Export and Shipping, 292 US 651, 78 L Ed judgment of a wise and prudent man, is apparently the best
1500 (1934); The Dampskibsselskabet Atalanta A/S v. US, for the interest of the persons for whom he acts in a given
31 F 2d 961 (1929); Ralli vs. Troop, 157 US 386 (1894). emergency, it may properly be said of the course so taken
22
 E.g., The Lusitania, 251 F 715 (1918). that it was in a mercantile sense necessary to take
23
 See, generally, The Dampskibsselskabet Atalanta it.”25 (Italics sup-plied)
A/S v. U.S., 31 F 2d 961 (1929); Ralli v. Troop, 157 US Compagnie de Commerce contended that the shipowner
386 (1894); Johnson v. U.S., 74 F 2d 703 (1935); Palmer v. should, at all events, be held responsible for the
United States, 85F Supp 764 (1949); deterioration in the value of the cargo incident to its long
279 stay on board the vessel from the date of its arrival in Manila
until the cargo was sold. The Supreme Court, in rejecting
VOL. 235, AUGUST 11, 1994 this contention also, declared that:
Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC “But it is clear that the master could not be required to act
Compagnie de Commerce v. Hamburg 24 is instructive in this on the very day of his arrival; or before he had a reasonable
connection. There, this Court recognized the discretionary opportunity to ascertain whether he could hope to carry out
authority of the master of a vessel and his right to exercise his contract and earn his freight; and that he should not be
his best judgment, with respect to navigating the vessel he held responsible for a reasonable delay incident to an effort
commands. In Compagnie de Commerce, a charter party was to ascertain the wishes of the freighter, and upon failure to
executed between Compagnie de Commerce and the owners secure prompt advice, to decide for himself as to the course
of the vessel Sambia, under which the former as charterer which he should adopt to secure the interests of the absent
loaded on board the Sambia, at the port of Saigon, certain owner of the property aboard the vessel.
cargo destined for the Ports of Dunkirk and Hamburg in The master is entitled to delay for such a period as may
Europe. The Sambia, flying the German flag, could not, in be reasonable under the circumstances, before deciding on
the judgment of its master, reach its ports of destination the course he will adopt. He may claim a fair opportunity of
because war (World War I) had been declared between carrying out a contract, and earning the freight, whether by
Germany and France. The master of the Sambia decided to repairing or transhipping. Should the repair of the ship be
deviate from the stipulated voyage and sailed instead for the undertaken, it must be proceeded with diligently; and if so
Port of Manila. Compagnie de Commerce sued in the done, the freighter will have no ground of complaint,
Philippines for damages arising from breach of the charter although the consequent delay be a long one, unless, indeed,
party and unauthorized sale of the cargo. In affirming the the cargo is perishable, and likely to be injured by the delay.
decision of the trial court dismissing the complaint, our Where that is the case, it ought to be forwarded, or sold, or
Supreme Court held that the master of the Sambia had given up, as the case may be, without waiting for repairs.
reasonable grounds to apprehend that the vessel was in A shipowner or shipmaster (if communication with the
danger of seizure or capture by the French authorities in shipowner is impossible), will be allowed a reasonable time
Saigon and was justified by necessity to elect the course in which to decide what course he will adopt in such cases
which he took—i.e., to flee Saigon for the Port of Manila.— as those under discussion; time must be allowed to him to
with the result that the shipowner was relieved from liability ascertain the facts, and to balance the conflicting interests
for the deviation from the stipulated route and from liability involved, of shipowner, cargo owner, underwriter on ship
for damage to the cargo. The Court said: and freight. But once the time has elapsed, he is bound to act
“The danger from which the master of the Sambia fled was a promptly according as he has elected either to repair, or
real and not merely an imaginary one as counsel for shipper abandon the voyage, or tranship. If he delays, and owing to
contends. Seizure at the hands of an ‘enemy of the King’, that delay a perishable cargo suffers damage, the shipowner
though not inevitable, was a possible outcome of a failure to will be liable for that damage; he cannot escape that
leave the port of Saigon; and we cannot say that under the obligation by pleading the absence of definite
conditions existing at the time when the master elected to
flee from that port, there were no grounds for a ‘reasonable _______________
apprehension of danger’ from seizure by the French
authorities, and therefore no necessity for flight. 25
 36 Phil. at 626-627.
The word ‘necessity’ when applied to mercantile affairs, 281
where the judgment must in the nature of things be VOL. 235, AUGUST 11, 1994

Page 5 of 6
 Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC amounting to an excess or loss of jurisdiction; indeed, we
instructions from the owners of the cargo or their share that conclusion and make it our own.
underwriters, since he has control of the cargo and is entitled Clearly, petitioners were angered at Captain Tayong’s
to elect.”26 (Italics supplied) decision to wait for delivery of the needed supplies before
The critical question, therefore, is whether or not Captain sailing from Singapore, and may have changed their
Tayong had reasonable grounds to believe that the safety of estimate of their ability to work with him and of his
the vessel and the crew under his command or the possibility capabilities as a ship captain. Assuming that to be
of substantial delay at sea required him to wait for the petitioners’ management prerogative, that prerogative is
delivery of the supplies needed for the repair of the turbo- nevertheless not to be exercised, in the case at bar, at the
charger and the economizer before embarking on the long cost of loss of Captain Tayong’s rights under his contract
voyage from Singapore to South Africa. with petitioners and under Philippine law.
In this connection, it is specially relevant to recall that, ACCORDINGLY, petitioners having failed to show
according to the report of Mr. Robert Clark, Technical grave abuse of discretion amounting to loss or excess of
Director of petitioner Sea Horse Ship Management, Inc., jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC in rendering its assailed
the Oceanic Mindoro had stopped in mid-ocean for six (6) decision, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED,
hours and forty-five (45) minutes on its way to Singapore for lack of merit. Costs against petitioners.
because of its leaking economizer. 27 Equally relevant is the SO ORDERED.
telex dated 2 August 1989 sent by Captain Tayong to Sea      Bidin, Romero, Melo and Vitug, JJ., concur.
Horse after Oceanic Mindoro had left Singapore and was en Petition dismissed.
route to South Africa. In this telex, Captain Tayong Notes.—“Ample opportunity” connotes every kind of
explained his decision to Sea Horse in the following terms: assistance that management must accord the employee to
“I CAPT R.D. TAYONG RE: UR PROBLEM IN SPORE enable him to prepare adequately for his defense, including
(SINGAPORE) I EXPLAIN AGN TO YOU THAT WE legal presentation. (Pangasinan III Electric Cooperative
ARE INSECURITY/ DANGER TO SAIL IN SPORE Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 215 SCRA
W/OUT HAVING SUPPLY OF OXY/ ACET. PLS 669)
UNDERSTAND HV PLENTY TO BE DONE REPAIR FM 283
MAIN ENGINE LIKE TURBO CHARGER PIPELINE, VOL. 235, AUGUST 12, 1994
ECONOMIZER LEAKAGE N ETC WE COULD NOT FIX Aurillo, Jr. vs. Francisco
IT W/OUT OXY/ACET ONBOARD. I AND MR. CLARK A position of trust and confidence is one where a person is
WE CONTACTED EACH OTHER BY PHONE IN entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, or with the
PAPAN N HE ADVSED US TO SAIL TO RBAY N WILL custody, handling or care and protection of the employer’s
SUPPLY OXY/ACET UPON ARRIVAL RBAY HE ALSO property. (Panday vs. National Labor Relations
EXPLAINED TO MY C/E HOW TO FIND THE REMEDY Commission, 209 SCRA 122)
W/OUT OXY/ ACET BUT C/E HE DISAGREED MR.
CLARK IDEA, THAT IS WHY WE URG REQUEST[ED] ———o0o———
YR KIND OFFICE TO ARRANGE SUPPLY OXY/ACET
BEFORE SAILING TO AVOID © Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
RISK/DANGER OR DELAY AT SEA N WE TOOK reserved.
PRECAUTION UR TRIP FOR 16 DAYS FM SPORE TO
RBAY. PLS. UNDERSTAND UR SITUATION.”28 (Italics
partly in source and partly supplied)

_______________
26
 36 Phil. at 631-632.
27
 Supra, note 4.
28
 As quoted in the Comment of respondent Rizalino D.
Tayong, dated 10 July 1994, p. 4.
282
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC
Under all the circumstances of this case, we, along with the
NLRC, are unable to hold that Captain Tayong’s decision
(arrived at after consultation with the vessel’s Chief
Engineer) to wait seven (7) hours in Singapore for the
delivery on board the Oceanic Mindoro of the requisitioned
supplies needed for the welding-repair, on board the ship, of
the turbo-charger and the economizer equipment of the
vessel, constituted merely arbitrary, capricious or grossly
insubordinate behavior on his part. In the view of the NLRC,
that decision of Captain Tayong did not constitute a legal
basis for the summary dismissal of Captain Tayong and for
termination of his contract with petitioners prior to the
expiration of the term thereof. We cannot hold this
conclusion of the NLRC to be a grave abuse of discretion

Page 6 of 6